Thursday, January 6, 2011

A Reprint: Two Men From Utah Beach

(Occasionally I write something that, after rereading it later, surprises me; I wrote this? Not because I'm such a talent [I am not. I'm a Dog who can write, but am, after all, only a Dog], but because it was just a nice bit or work -- blind squirrels and occasional acorns and all that. This is one of those posts, from January of 2010.)




Infantry Under Fire, Huddled At The Utah Beach Seawall,
June 6, 1944 (Smithsonian Collection; Public Domain)

Today, the New York Times, one of the last newspapers where publishing Obituaries is an art form (one of the last newspapers, come to that), reported two men who had once been at Utah Beach at the same time on D-Day -- J.D. Salinger -- author of Franny And Zooey; Raise High The Roof Beam, Carpenters; and, aber natürlich, Catcher In The Rye -- and Louis Auchincloss ("Wall Street lawyer from a prominent old New York family who became a durable and prolific chronicler of Manhattan’s old-money elite"), died at ages 91 and 92 respectively.





Portrait Of Auchincloss By Everett Raymond Kinstler, 2008

Auchincloss was a member of America's hereditary, monied elite. He was raised in a world of town houses, summer homes on Long Island and Bar Harbor, Maine; private clubs and servants, debutante parties and travel abroad. However, as a child Auchincloss thought of himself as "neither rich nor aristocratic": In a 1974 autobiography, A Writer's Capital, he noted, “Like most children of affluence, I grew up with a distinct sense that my parents were only tolerably well off. This is because children always compare their families with wealthier ones, never with poorer."


Facades Of Brownstone Mansions, New York City 2008
(Photo: New York Times Online Real Estate Section)

His path through life was predictable enough for one of his class -- a comfortable childhood, preparatory schools; guaranteed entry to Yale in 1935; he seemed predestined for the life of a Gentleman of his class; a man with means who did little beyond tending and adding to the Family fortune. But it was in his Junior year at Yale that the wheels came off his little Bourgeois wagon.


Not For You And Me: Summer Home In Bar Harbor, ME

Auchincloss yearned to break from the well-travelled path of the monied and privileged and wrote a novel. When it was subsequently rejected by a major New York publisher, Auchincloss decided “that a man born to the responsibilities of a brownstone bourgeois world could only be an artist or writer if he were a genius.” He dropped out of Yale, which he found suffocating, and decided upon taking up a profession, one that his milieu wouldn't reject, and entered the University of Virginia Law School on the eve of WW2.

He was surprisingly good at the law -- and, Trusts and Estates law, at that -- a specialty almost solely devoted to the hereditary wealthy. In WW2, he volunteered for the U.S. Navy, was commissioned an officer and served in Naval Intelligence (typical for a Knickerbocker), but left that to command an LST at Utah beach on D-Day at Normandy, then in the Pacific after V-E Day. Even with his normal duties, he had completed a second novel, but "threw it in the trash".

It wasn't until 1947 that he completed The Indifferent Children, published after he returned to his law practice. It appeared under the pseudonym Andrew Lee, in deference to his mother, who thought the book “trivial and vulgar”, and feared it would damage his career (the horror of publicity, too, a trait of the rich).


Auchincloss At His New York City Home, 2005

I remember reading a New Yorker portrait of him several years ago while waiting in my Dog Trainer's office, and was struck with how much a man of his class he was -- and yet, he wasn't. He felt no sense of guilt at who and what he was (there isn't a trace of it in his writing). And, although I haven't read much of his work (which, like a wine, had hints of Edith Wharton and John Updike-ian highlights, though Auchincloss was far below Updike), his characters were drawn from his own world, and in chronicling their human failings, Auchincloss pointed up the value of at least an ethical rectitude if not a moral one.

The very wealthy are rarely seen by the likes of you and I. Where they live, where they eat, travel and shop is inside a Magic Circle of privilege and exclusivity. If he hadn't been an author, and his books hadn't possessed some merit, Auchincloss would have moved through life inside that Circle, acting as lawyer to his own tribe; his mark would have been made in helping them to preserve and maintain wealth accumulated over generations. His friends and clients would have been "his crowd... the right sort", who knew people he knew, summered where he did, voted Republican, and may have had their suits, shirts and shoes custom-made by the same Gentleman's tailors and reclusive cobblers.

But that wasn't his life -- or, not all of it. When he was writing, he was temporarily freed of the bourgeois world he swam in so easily. Auchincloss couldn't escape what he was as a man, but as an author he tried to see further, explore the human condition and bring back an artifact from his travels for a wider audience.

Commenting to an interviewer for some Tony Manhattan publication in 2007, however, Auchincloss reminded us that the world of the wealthy never really goes away in what are, for the rest of us, good times or bad:

Even near the end of his life, Mr. Auchincloss said the influence of his class had not waned. “I grew up in the 1920s and 1930s in a nouveau riche world, where money was spent wildly, and I’m still living in one!,” he told The Financial Times in 2007. “The private schools are all jammed with long waiting lists; the clubs — all the old clubs — are jammed with long waiting lists today; the harbors are clogged with yachts; there has never been a more material society than the one we live in today. Where is this ‘vanished world’ they talk about?” he asked. “I don’t think the critics have looked out the window!”





J.D. Salinger, Surprised By A Fan's Camera In Cornish, NH,
On His 89th Birthday In 2008: "Woe betide any of those fans
who track him down just to explain that they, like, totally
love him and can so relate to his retreat from a world of
phony bastards. 'No you don’t,' he told one such visitor,
'Or you wouldn’t be here.' "

Jerome David Salinger was once groomed by his father for a career in the ham business, which, fortunately for American letters, never quite congealed. He was born in New York City, attended Progressive and Prep schools; he had just begun to publish short fiction -- in The New Yorker, no less -- when he was drafted in 1942. Initially a rifleman in the 4th Infantry Division, he was transferred to serve as a Counterintelligence specialist, trained to interrogate prisoners and review captured documents and maps -- meaning Salinger had to possess an above-average ability with spoken and written German.


Camp Ritchie, Maryland, During WW2 (Contemporary Postcard)

(Training for all CIC specialists was conducted at one location -- Camp Ritchie, Maryland, and is detailed in the book, Germans, by George Bailey [1970]. I wonder if Salinger and Bailey knew each other; they were at the Camp at the same time, 1943, and had to know the same instructors, characters, and fellow voulnteers, many of whom were German-Jewish refugees from the nazis who had taken U.S. citizenship.)

Salinger went ashore on D-Day at Utah beach with elements of the first wave of the 4th Infantry. I've wondered from time to time whether Louis Auchincloss, commanding an LST in carrying that first wave in to Utah on June 6th, ferried the future author of one of America's enduring, classic postwar novels that day; it's not impossible.

In December of 1944 and into 1945, Salinger fought in the Battle Of The Bulge -- when everyone on the line, for weeks, no matter what their MOS*, were riflemen. After The Bulge, he was was hospitalized with "battle fatigue", the forerunning terminology for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[*MOS = Military Occupational Specialty, a term more familiar to Vietnam-era draftees]


Salinger, In The U.S. Army, Circa 1944 (Unknown)

After release from hospital, he remained in Germany for at least a year, helping Allied authorities track down nazi functionaries wanted by the Occupation powers. He married a German woman, briefly; very little is known of her, or this period in Salinger's life.

(We might be able to infer what some of his duties may have been, again from George Bailey's book: Many of the CIC specialists in 1945-46 also helped to resettle refugees from the Soviets in various small German communities -- who were under Allied military jurisdiction and had no choice but to, uh, follow orders.)

(This involved a degree of subterfuge, quick wits, and a sense of both the scale of physical and moral destruction the nazis had brought on Europe and their own country; and a heightened sense of the kind of absurdity peculiar to the U.S. Army, which appears in novels like Catch-22 or Slaughterhouse Five.)

Returning from the war, Salinger also returned to New York City and in 1948 published a short story, "A Perfect Day For Bananafish", in the New Yorker -- a kind of shot-across-the-bow to announce a different kind of writer was in town. After several other short stories were published by the magazine, in 1951 Salinger's seminal novel, Catcher In The Rye, was published.

Salinger had A Major And Serious Jones for attention as a literary genius; While in college, even before the war,he bragged about his literary talent and ambitions, and proven he had the chops for it. But, when Catcher became a runaway bestseller and critical success, being in the 'eye of the comic book hurricane' was more than he bargained for.


Salinger On The Cover Of TIME, 1953: From The Bulge
To National Notoriety In Less Than Ten Years

It wasn't just being lionized by the Establishment press and New York literary mafia; the book was a landmark of postwar American alienation. Salinger seemed to give a voice through his narrator, Holden Caulfield, to the conflicted, shamed, vainglorious, and noble patter which runs through all our heads on a daily basis; Caulfield was nearly an archetypal figure -- and the novel resonated.

What I like best is a book that's at least funny once in a while...What really knocks me out is a book that, when you're all done reading it, you wish the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it. That doesn't happen much, though.
Holden Caulfield, Catcher In The Rye

And it did resonate with the feelings of being lost, an undefined longing, in so many people who read the novel that Salinger was subjected to what eventually would be termed 'stalking' from readers -- some enthusiastic, many others troubled; but all of whom believed Salinger had a finer perception of the world we live in, and could be that "terrific friend" and help them. They wanted answers to The Big Questions.

(Sometimes, it's the author of the moment you look for. In the 70's, after The World According To Garp had appeared, four friends from my time in New York and I borrowed someone's car and drove up into New England; there was talk of trying to get a glimpse of Salinger -- rejected by the eternal Mick Koznick as "too bourgeois" -- turned into a search for Putney, Vermont, and author John Irving, which might have succeeded but for the fact that we were primarily drunk most of the time.)

(Koznick was a guy as big as Lucca Brazi, in black leather jacket and Ray-Bans, who, drunk off his ass in a West Orange bar, would punch you in the chest with a forefinger to emphasize a point and say in a serious working-class, Mobbed-up Jersey accent, M'eye right? (Pause) Ah'm right. M'eye right? (Pause) Ah'm right. When someone like Mick tells you looking for Salinger is too Bourgeois, you tend to accept the judgment with out much Hoo-Hah.)


First Paperback Edition Of Catcher In The Rye

The response of college students to the work of J. D. Salinger indicates that he, more than anyone else, has not turned his back on the times but, instead, has managed to put his finger on whatever struggle of significance is going on between self and culture.
Phillip Roth, 1974

Eventually, Salinger told his editors that he was “good and sick” of seeing his photograph on the dust jacket of Catcher in the Rye and demanded that it be removed from subsequent editions. He ordered his agent to burn any fan mail. In 1953, Salinger moved to a 90-acre parcel of land in Cornish, New Hampshire, which had a long history as an artist's colony.

And, for the most part, Salinger was never publicly seen again. He was rumored to have achieved a mystical state of satori and left the physical plane; or to be writing novel after novel to be published after his death (and so removed from attendant publicity); or to have decayed into an abberated, Howard-Hughes-like paranoid, long-haired recluse. College students tried staking out his property, or -- once it became known he had a PO Box in Cornish -- his local Post Office. sightings of Salinger were few, and brief; the man was smart and quick.


James Earl Jones As 'Terence Mann', The Salinger Character
From W.P. Kinsella's Tale Which Became Field Of Dreams

In the early 80's, when W.P. Kinsella wrote his novel, "Shoeless Joe" (turned into the film Field Of Dreams in 1989), he put J. D. Salinger into the novel, going to New Hampshire to bring him back to Iowa and the magical baseball field Ray Kinsella has built in his cornfield. Salinger would have nothing to do with the production and didn't want his name used; the reclusive author figure played by James Earl Jones became 'Terence Mann' ("I don't know the secret of life -- and I don't have any answers for you. So piss off").

In 1997, Ron Rosenblum wrote a piece for Esquire magazine, "The Haunted Life Of J. D. Salinger": The silence of a writer is not quite the same as the silence of God, but there's something analogous: an awe-inspiring creator, someone who we belive has some answers of some kind, refusing to respond to us, hiding his face, withholding his creation.

Still, Salinger could be seen in and around Cornish, if you were diligent. He would be outdone in the reclusiveness department by Thomas Ruggles Pynchon, Jr., author of his own engrossing postmodern novels ( V.; Gravity's Rainbow; Crying Of Lot 49; Mason & Dixon; Vineland; Against The Day), who has only been publicly seen twice between the early 1960's and the late 1990's -- and not at all since.


Thomas Ruggles Pynchon, Jr., In 1953: One Of Seven

Only seven published photographs of him known are to exist -- six yearbook photos, and one as a seaman in the U.S. Navy in the mid-to-late 1950's.

Okay, Pynchon's done a few 'Simpsons' voiceovers, where his cartoon character has a paper bag over his head; and Robert K. Massie thanked Pynchon in the afterword to Massie's amazingly good 1991 book, Dreadnought; but he still makes Salinger look like a publicity hog.

Unlike Salinger, Pynchon (who is 73 this year) isn't demanding, Garbo-like, to be left alone; he simply prefers anonymity. Doing the occasional 'Simpsons' guest spot is Pynchon's way of mocking his own sense of privacy -- something Salinger would never have done, and proof that hanging out with Tom for an afternoon or over a beer wouldn't be a waste of time and might even be fun.

Wikipedia notes: In the early 1990s, Pynchon married his literary agent, Melanie Jackson — a great-granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt — and fathered a son, Jackson, in 1991. The disclosure ... led some journalists and photographers to try to track him down.

[I]n 1997, a CNN camera crew filmed him in Manhattan. Angered by this invasion of his privacy, he rang CNN asking that he not be identified ... "Let me be unambiguous. I prefer not to be photographed." In 1998, a reporter for the [South African] Sunday Times managed to snap a photo of him as he was walking with his son.

I don't know enough about Salinger's inner life, or Pynchon's, to know why they removed themselves from the barest hint of the public spotlight. But, I don't have to. Their lives -- like mine, or yours -- are no one else's business.

I don't agree with John Fowles' autobiographical-fictional narrator in his novel, Daniel Martin, when he notes that creative persons put themselves up on a public soapbox and suffer all that doing so entails. I'm a fairly private person, and Pynchon (or Salinger)'s ire at being stalked like a Snow Leopard by a National Geographic film team is wholly appropriate.


“Here’s your quote. Thomas Pynchon loved this book. Almost
as much as he loves cameras,” a reference indicating that
Marge Simpson’s novel sucks Brontosauruses. Fellow Recluse
Salaman Rushdie describes Pynchon as "Still Crazy After All
These Years".

Salinger was married several times, and divorced; in the 1990's, his daughter would publish a book about being the child of an obviously brilliant and obsessive-compulsive man, the only look into his world anyone had been granted in almost forty years. One tantalizing glimpse from the book: Salinger had a bookcase in his Cornish home, packed with what very well may have been manuscripts written over the years.


Salinger And His Wife, Circa 2009 (Paul Adao, NY Post)

About the same time, in his early eighties, Salinger married a nurse "considerably younger" than himself, but did not change his reclusiveness or irascibility. His new wife adopted Salinger's desire for privacy. He only had his name brought back into the public spotlight when forced -- as he did last year, when a Swedish author wanted to publish what amounted to a sequel to Catcher, titled "Sixty Years After". The Swede claimed it was a parody, like Jane Austen With Zombies. Salinger was plenty steamed, and a court agreed with him.

After breaking his hip this past winter, his health declined rapidly, and he passed away -- peacefully, it was reported -- last night. Like Auchincloss, he lived his life on his own terms; not comfortably provided to him, but -- for better or worse, like all of us -- one made by his own hand. But I believe Salinger will be missed, and his works read by new generations (Catcher In The Rye still sells over 250,000 copies a year) long after Louis' writings fade into a genteel obscurity.

I hope to hell that when I do die somebody has the sense to just dump me in the river or something. Anything except sticking me in a goddam cemetery. People coming and putting a bunch of flowers on your stomach on Sunday, and all that crap. Who wants flowers when you're dead? Nobody.
Holden Caulfield, Catcher In The Rye


The Why Of Dog

Random Barking

Most people I know who cruise the Intertubes have a handful of sites which they visit regularly. They also use it for topic-specific searches (Which actor played the cop Bruce Willis punched at the end of that movie on a river which I can't remember the name of?), and just for random cruising.

Pretty pictures, writing that makes us laugh, cry, or not; funny videos. As a species, we demand our Entertainment -- and where there's entertainment, there's advertising and data mining and money to be made. Facebook knows. So does Little Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs VampSquid).

For the sites I visit regularly, I'm amazed at the amount of personal opinion about -- well, stuff that gets tossed out there, embedded like raisins or ratshit amongst more 'serious' essays about Our Life In These Times, or posts based on their professional work as financial analysts, historians, or monster truck devotees.

Opinions about the best martini, whether Jimmy Page or Rory Gallagher is the better classic rock guitarist; reports about their vacations; or why, uh, "intimate" relationships in marriage can actually be Teh Hot. It's like reading someone's diary, with misspellings, misinformation and syntax errors intact -- but, I suspect you already know this about the Intertubes.

It's the functional equivalent of a playground (or a neighborhood bar), with all the arbitrary supervision, rules you learn as you go, and ultimately organized for someone else's financial benefit. But you hang out there because it's flashy, and fun, and sometimes you're lonely and have no where else to go. Unlike the neighborhood bar, it can also be a place where everyone doesn't know your name (this blog a case in point).

Some sites are nearly all random junk tossed out of the unsorted, sock-drawer minds of people who should spend less time online (Some -- the Goldbergs and Malkins, the Coulters, McArdles and Althouses, shouldn't be allowed Intertube access, at all). Occasionally, they find an acorn and publish something enlightening, but it's like hunting for a bomber in the chaff: Your radar has better things to do.

We who blog can't resist posting that personal and meaningless, opinionated Stuff, though -- because we're paradoxical creatures, who crave order and regularity and at the same time seek the "new", the random and surprising. And everybody who blogs does it.

I'm doing it right now. Woof Woof Woof Woof. Bark Bark. Bark.


Saturday, January 1, 2011

Is The Wonderful Is This Life

By I. Rabschinsky


George Bailey Guy Making The Panik

So always in the America there is at this time the fooding, and also the Sports Produkt on the television. Many people filling themselves with Holiday as if they about to be told, "Next year, you cannot eat!". I am thinking they are the hostage of their Hindbrain, which is still Neanderthal and wishes to fight with Mastodon. But, still.

And, I am noticing specific films which is only appearing on Amerikanyets television at these months between like maybe September and the time of your New Year.

My examples: At Passover, some of the television is showing The Ten Super Big Mitzvah Rules, with Charlton Heston Guy -- you know, movie where Moses stop making fooling around to pretend he is Big Guy of the Egypt, and decides to get real job saving People Of Israel.

This requires lots of people walking around, always saying "Oh, Moses, Moses, Moses" -- like, if they say this three times, they will be teleported by magik into better movie. Navarone Kind Of Big Guns, maybe, or Socialist-Colored Panther.


Place Which Is Gone Forever: Amerikanyets Driving To Movies:
"Moses, Moses, Moses -- What is happening with our Drive-Ins?"

At another time in year, they are showing same Heston Guy what is Moses in Big Mitzvah Rules in another movie, Ben Of Her. However this is basically film of Jewish guy who becomes like early Jesus guy, but by accident.

Movie is good; he is Number Forty-One guy in slave ship, rowing like animator for the Disney; there are becoming big boat battle, and he gets to be some kind of honorary Goyim. Later, there is an exciting thing with horses and carts -- but it is not the porn film, so too bad for you. Go to web sites where they have not blocked you.


Charlton Ben Heston Making The Ramming Speed, 1959

At finally, with the Christmas, every year since somebody discover the Secret Of Fire there is this broadcasting this movie, It Is Wonderful This Life, made by Frank Capra Guy in 1947, showing the kind of place which everybody wanted to believe was the Amerika. Small town, everybody knows everybody; values is good and everybody work hard and knows their places.

Just like village in the Moldova, except animals do not leave defecation in the street, everyone is speaking English, and most people have job. Plus concrete used in apartment buildings is better quality.

Every single year they are showing this film. It is now a classic also, like Wizard Of Odd and Potemkin Kind Of Battleship and Mister Hulot Goes To Beach Place. It is as big movie as The Tanks Know The Truth (Very popular Great Patriotic War movie made in the Russia. My Great-Uncle Yehudi claims he is in this film as Extra, but still we love him).


Big Scene From Tanks Knowing The Truth: Are They Knowing?
Well, They Are Tank; You Are Person. You Want To Be That Sure?

It Is Wonderful This Life story is maybe simple: Guy, George Bailey Guy, living in small town wants to die, because he thinks his life is shit. And there are the angels, who show us life of this Guy in the little town, and how he is The Good, and there is the Rich Guy who is The Bad. And George Bailey Guy never gets to do things in the Life because the Fate is not for him.

Then there is mistake with money (a problem made from the Rich Bad Guy), for which he is blamed, and he runs from family and goes to place of Publik Alkohol; finally he goes to bridge to jump in freezing water so his family will get small piece of Insurance money. Very Sad (There is also squirrel in another scene which is sad, but never mind). Also very Petit-Bourgeois.

So, Angel Guy comes to the Earth and shows this George Bailey Guy his life is maybe kind of okay, not so much the shit; and boom boom boom, problem with the money goes away in big scene at end when everyone gives him their money, and everyone sings. So happy, little bells on tree and big bells of church ring; America wins the World War Two and future is filled with television and freeway. The End.

But this is too simple, my friend. No way is actual life like this. So, maybe some of me thinks this is kind of the Propaganda about America, to keep us from seeing the Truth of the Things.

And, there is forbidden version of this film, which is other kind of the Propaganda. Please -- allow me to introduce.




борьбе за построение социализма во время Угнетение
(также называется "Любовь и революция" после 1991)

("Love And Revolution", Directed By Frank Kapronovich [1949]; Starring Pytor Chost, Gravnik Bolodorin, Irina Valutin. Special appearances by the Spirit Of Revolution, also Che Guevara, Samuel Beckett, and entire 12th Guards Motorized Infantry Regiment)

SO, movie opens with Guy, Georgi Edwardovich Bailey Guy, at the Bridge. He is unhappy, this Guy; boy oh boy he is like making the panic. He goes to public alkohol place and tries to think, but he only finds himself between the forces of dissent and confusion!


TROTSKYITE GUY: River not so bad, after five minutes.
EXISTENTIAL GUY: Wait, but no one comes. No one cares.

Hoo boy; Georgi is in big fix. This guy has family with SmallChilds, and tiny Policy Insuring The Life -- and he is believing everybody would be better off if he would jump and get it over with, already.


GEORGI: My life is steaming pile of animal things,
because the Rich Guy will always win. Now I am jumping.

But, Georgi is being watched at Bridge. Not by some angel Guy (none of this reliance on things which cannot be proven by good Socialist science!) -- but even better -- is Spirit Of Revolutsya!


(Spirit Of The Revolution Watches Georgi)

And, The Spirit saves Georgi! He takes him to place where they can speak of things, of the Truth -- and slowly, Georgi's eyes are opened to not only the forces of historical determinism, but the inevitability of struggle against the oppressor classes!


GEORGI: So you are saying that when the consciousness
of the People is raised sufficiently, that armed struggle
is not only necessary but inevitable?
SPIRIT: You got it, Comrade.

So, Georgi, now with eyes opened thanks to the words of the kindly Spirit, is seeing that the world is filled with inequality and criminal things so big your head feels like kicked soccer ball. It is like understanding that, not only are you living as Dog, lapping up the vomit of the Rich Guy, but you work in factory to make guns to force others to live like this (Also, the Rich Guy pays you in fake dog vomit and those X-Ray glasses which do not work).

For Georgi, this is whole bunch of dried fish to eat in one night (Like story by that Guy, Dickens Guy, Carol Burnett Christmas, or something). This is the Life? He is asking himself.


A World Of Things For Them, But Not Food For Children


Economy And Bad Fate For Peoples Means Nothing To Them


For Them, The World Is Something To Carve Up, Like Beef


While The Many People Lose Everything To The Illegal Foreclosure

So now Georgi is filled with indignant and bad feeling for The State Of These Things. He feels the pain of the oppressed, working masses, and is being filled with Revolutionary Fervor -- and he goes to talk with the People in his little village, to tell them what the Spirit had revealed to him -- and the Spirit sends along friend, Che Guevara Guy, to help.



GEORGI: We don't have to live under the heel of Potter's boot!
He's just some, bloodsucking animal! Feeding on all of us -- and I'm
tired of living on fake dog vomit! We have to run things!
CHE GUEVARA SPIRIT GUY: Ay, Yi Yi! You listen to this guy.

The People, moved by Georgi's words, march with him to the place of the Bad Rich Guy, to demand Justice, the chance to make something other than guns, and to be paid in actual money instead of rubber dog vomit and X-Ray glasses which do not work.



BAD RICH GUY: You realize that the manufacture and sale of
weapons around the globe is the backbone of our nation's industry?
GEORGI: You don't understand -- the days of taking your rubber
dog barf are over, Potter! We're going to run things!
MOB: No fake dog barf!! No fake dog barf!!


BAD RICH GUY: My family has run this town for fifty generations.
All I have to do is close the factories. How long will it be before
your little rag-tag mob starts to starve? They'll come crawling back
to work -- and for half the rubber dog barf I gave you before!

Then, Georgi takes the Big Step -- the one which all oppressed people are taking in these movies when faced with Oppressors who pay them with rubber dog vomit: He crosses line from intellectualizing his oppression to active revolutionary.

Otherwise, we would have no resolution of all this rising action; and only ending for this film possible is that everyone would go for Pizza. This is unsatisfying from view of the Socialist imperative.


GEORGI: You're wrong, Potter -- you, and people of your
class are finished. Now you're going to face Justice for your
crimes -- because the People own the means of production!

And so The Bad Rich Guy is taken away by the People; his house later becomes hospital, day-care center, and place where revolutionary theater troupes practice before going into the streets.



And, of course, there is a proper celebration at the Georgi Bailey house, with the Revolutsia Spirit and the SmallChilds.


GEORGI: Gosh, Spirit, I don't know how we can thank you.
SMALLCHILD 01: Spirit, can't you stay and have some Fair
Trade™ coffee with homemade whiskey with us?
SPIRIT: No, SmallChild; I must go. There are so many oppressed
peoples in a world beset by unspeakable monsters of Capital.
But I will take a shot of that whiskey -- neat, please.

Finally, after long discussion between Rich Bad Guy and the Organs Of State Security, he faces Revolutionary Justice and the verdict of The People.


RICH BAD GUY: Long live International Capitalism!
PEOPLE'S MILITIA LEADER: Fire!

And, of course, Georgi and his lovely wife are pausing in their labor to build a New Socialist Future to share a moment's reflection on the plight of The Peoples, and also to suggest some hygienic sexual activity between them which may occur later.



...and in the background, The Internationale swells on the soundtrack, sung by the Sad Vlad Orphans Choir Of Greater Moscow! Please to show the credits!

This film has not been shown since its original release; big shame, also, because it is at least as good as movie with Bert Landcaster in it but of the name, just now, is escaping me.

Great-Uncle Yehudi likes Revolutionary Love. He thinks it is wonderful comedy, but still we love him. If you can find this film on DVD, then okay. If not, well then it is big world out there! Be That Guy -- go find!

I, Rabschinsky, say this -- to Moldavish Guy; you also.


Friday, December 31, 2010

Something Something Something Alud; Something Something Be Forgot

Happy 2011


Times Square In New York City, With It's Famous Ball

What does this song mean? My whole life, I don't know what this song means. I mean, 'Should old acquaintance be forgot'? Does that mean that we should forget old acquaintances, or does it mean if we happened to forget them, we should remember them -- which is not possible, because we already forgot?
-- Harry Burns [Billy Crystal], "When Harry Met Sally" (1989)

To friend and foe, from one older and rather beaten up Dog in 2010, to all of you: A Happy (and, Better) New Year.


Thursday, December 23, 2010

What The Dog Is Doing: Holiday Edition 2

The Dog Biscuit: A Trip, And More Art

San Francisco has a decent set of arts museums -- The M. H. de Young Memorial Museum and the Palace of the Legion of Honor (collectively known as the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF)), in addition to the Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA), and the Asian Art Museum.

The de Young is in the center of Golden Gate Park, the Legion of Honor in the Presidio on the Pacific coast. Both house the City's collections of European and American art from the Medieval through, roughly, the end of the Second World War (though the de Young does have wings dedicated to collections of both Pacific, African and Meso-American art and artifacts).

I sleep later on weekends or vacations; Dogs do that. Getting up this morning, I just wanted to be in motion, not thinking a great deal (because I've been doing that too much lately, and it's done me little good), and decided to get out the door as fast as I could and take a two-bus trip to the de Young: Shower, shave, dress; kultur.

There's a traveling exhibition from Paris' Musee d'Orsay, "Beyond Impressionism", which I haven't yet seen, and won't until later in January, before it leaves (When I was there today, every timed tour group for the show was sold out, all day). All I wanted was to wander a little and see my favorites in the museum's general collection, hoping that looking at these images would be beneficial, centering, inspiring.




The Exposition And The Entrepeneur

In January of 1894, San Francisco had hosted a 'Midwinter International Exposition'. Michael H. de Young, editor and sole proprietor of the San Francisco Chronicle, was the chief proponent and organizer of the Midwinter fair; two years earlier, de Young had been part of the commission to decide on a location for what became the 1892 Chicago World Columbian Exposition, and wanted to create a similar draw for arts and culture (and money to the local economy) in San Francisco.


Midwinter International Exposition, 1894 (Photo: Wikipedia)

[For those familiar with Golden Gate Park, the current site of the de Young museum is on the left, the Academy of Sciences on the right. From the racetrack-style concourse and sunken central gardens, it's easy to see where this part of Golden Gate Park had its genesis.]

An Egyptian-style fine arts hall built for the Exposition (and a large Japanese garden) remained after it closed. Fourteen years later, after being damaged in the 1906 earthquake, the fine arts hall was repaired. In 1929, it was pulled down and replaced by a Spanish Renaissance structure -- which in turn was damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, demolished, and replaced again by a new museum in 2005.


The De Young Museum As It Appeared From 1929 - 2001
(Photo: Lost SF [Blog By A Native About A Changing City])

The night of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in October of 1989, I accepted a ride from the San Mateo train station into The City -- the driver cut across Golden Gate Park at 9th Avenue, and the museum with its distinctive tower was clear in the moonlight. The entire city was without electricity, and I wondered about the building's alarms and whether any of the art had been damaged.

The de Young I saw in a Prussian blue and silver-grey outline that night was the museum that I'd effectively grown up with. Many of my memories of San Francisco, until I moved here, have Golden Gate Park and at least the outline this particular building as part of them. After that earthquake, the art was fine -- but in the photo above you can see the support bracing that visually announced the building's death sentence: It would have to be replaced.




Bequests, Building, And Public Beneficiaries


Aerial View Of The New de Young, Completed 2005

The history of building any large museum can't be separated from its evolution as an organization, though that's more complicated (it involves the relationship between governments, and established wealth as the traditional support for public culture, and the benefits to established wealth for doing so), and would take more space than it deserves here.

The short version is, after Michael H. de Young died in 1925, his family made a bequest of much of his private art collection to the City and County of San Francisco -- and the City's part of the bargain in accepting that bequest was to demolish the old fine arts hall left from the exposition de Young had helped create, replacing it with a new, Spanish-influenced building to display the man's collection for the public.

The de Young Museum remained a separate institution for over forty years, until the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF) was established in 1972, with a charter to reorganize and reinvigorate San Francisco's public art collections. FAMSF redistributed the bulk of what had been de Young's European art to the Palace of the Legion of Honor, but keeping the Pacific and Meso-American collections at the de Young -- and, an impressive, predominantly Chinese collection of Asian art (a bequest from Avery Brundage, later moved to its own museum after 2001).

What the de Young had always offered the public was a good collection of art, the largest and best in California; excellent for a regional institution, but not competitive with those of museums in New York, Washington D.C., Paris, Tokyo, London, or Berlin. However, when John D. Rockefeller III died (1978), and later his wife, Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller (1992), the tax advantages from bequesting portions of their large private art collections meant that some 100-plus paintings came to the de Young, and began to move its collection into world-class territory.

When it was clear the 1929 museum could not be retrofitted or repaired from damage in the 1989 earthquake, that de Young was demolished, and reincarnated in a museum that reflected changes in public architecture, and the times -- America's economy was at the height of the Go-Go, "Lil' Boots" Bush era.


The de Young Museum And Observation Tower (North View)

In 2005, the year the new de Young opened, our Bubble-fed economy had drifted as high as it would go. Public structures reflect something of the Zeitgeist of the times in which they're designed and built, and I wonder whether something of the baseless extravagance and exuberance of those times made it into the new de Young's architecture.

Losing the old de Young was (as it is for anyone who anchors memory and self to places and things) more than a disappointment; a sad little reminder of aging, and how the City where I've spent over half my life is changing. I try to see the new de Young as a bold statement, and with fresh eyes; but, frankly, I'm not there to see the outside of the building. The interior is what counts, and it's a well-designed set of spaces to view art, and display the painting collections very well.

So, let's go in; we'll walk around a little (don't worry; it's not some Sister Wendy / Simon Schama exercise; I'm not going to tell you what the paintings "mean") and we can stop to look at what (in one Dog's opinion) are a few beautiful and even exceptional works.




The Permanent Collection: A Select Look
All Images By Mongo / Photoshop

In the first gallery on the ground floor are the parts of the permanent collection that embrace primarily American painting from before the Great War, to the Sixties and beyond. This strays into the territory of the SFMOMA a bit, but no one minds.


Georgia O'Keeffe, Petunias (1925), Oil On Panel

O'Keeffe (1887 - 1986) had begun creating images of flowers, which remain one of her iconic trademarks, in 1924. She had just sold a similarly-sized work of lilies through the gallery, 291, owned by her husband, photographer Alfred Stiglitz, for $25,000 (nearly a quarter-million dollars today). She and Stiglitz had married in 1924, living and working in New York City and summering at the Stiglitz clan's upstate Lake George home. O'Keeffe wouldn't go to Taos for the first time until the late spring of 1929.

O'Keeffe was a meticulous painter, and depended on as smooth a transition as possible in blending values between hues of paint (you can see this in the purple - violet - red/violet hues in this work). And, finding the general frames of the period too ornate and distracting from the art, she frequently made her own, covering them with gesso and applying silver leaf. The frame on Petunias is one of her own.





Grant Wood, Dinner For Threshers (1934), Oil On Panel
(Click On Image For Larger Version)

Grant Wood spent only a short time in Europe in the early 1920's, but the effect of seeing the work of Northern German artists of the late 16th and early 17th centuries became the basis for his mature artistic style. Compare his most famous, iconic American painting, American Gothic, with the portraits of Holbein and Dürer and you'll see the connections.

The same year Dinner For Threshers was completed, Wood's work was featured in Time magazine in an article titled “The U.S. Scene”, and featured his art, along with fellow Midwesterners John Steuart Curry and Thomas Benton -- portraying the three men as the new heroes of an 'authentic American art'. The media began calling them founders of 'Regionalism' as a significant art movement -- while the art community in New York referred to them derisively as the "Prairie School".





Thomas Hart Benton, Susanna and the Elders (1938),
Oil and Egg Tempera On Panel

In the Pentateuch, Book of Daniel, a virtuous wife named Susanna bathes alone in her garden, watched by two lustful elders. They threaten to claim she was meeting a young man, unless she agrees to have sex with them. She refuses, and as she is about to be put to death for promiscuity, the young Daniel interrupts and demands the accusing elders be questioned, separately. Their stories don't match; Susanna is freed, the false accusers are put to death, and virtue triumphs.

Thomas Hart Benton (1889 - 1975) was the artists who made the cover of the December 24, 1934 issue of Time magazine, featuring Benton, Grant Wood and John Curry in “The U.S. Scene” article that established Regionalism as a recognized art movement.

Benton was born in Missouri; his father was a U.S. Congressman and uncle a U.S. Senator. Groomed for a political career, Benton rebelled -- he studied art in New York, and actually lived in the East most of his life. However, he was more politically conservative than his artistic contemporaries; when the Great Depression hit, Benton returned to the midwest, finding work through the WPA as a muralist, and continued developing his style in works with a regional theme, like Susanna and the Elders.

The work created a stir in 1938 when it was first displayed; even a retalling of a Biblical story, featuring a nude with clearly depicted pubic hair, was a little over the top for the folks in Kansas City.



Let's walk up the broad staircase to the second floor, where the bulk of the American collection is located. The Pacific and African collections are on this floor, too, but that's for another visit.




The Sargents


John Singer Sargent, Study Of Florentine Architecture (18XX)
Oil On Canvas

John Singer Sargent (1854 - 1925) was a rara avis of the art world: A person who seems born to do their art with near-perfection, right from the beginning, and as simply as breathing (in contemporary terms, painters like Bo Bartlett come to mind). It doesn't mean that Sargent never worked at his craft, but compared to the rest of us it's the difference between fine-tuning and real intense effort. The man had a genius.

Sargent (who was known as "John S. Sargent" during his life, and not his full name) was definitely a prodigy, and studied the en premiere coup (or, wet paint painted into wet paint) method under the French painter Carolus Duran in Paris. By design and virtuoso handling of paint, Sargent became within less than fifteen years one of the most sought-after portrait painters in the Western world.


Sargent, Portrait of Caroline de Bassano, Marquise d'Espeuilles
Oil On Canvas

Portraiture is one of the most difficult arenas of art: You have to produce not only a recognizable likeness of a person, but at the level at which Sargent was operating, a flatteringly recognizable one. He painted portraits of academics and scholars, other artists and friends -- but also the Old and Noveau monied grandees of the old World (principally England), and the New (the astoundingly rich American wealthy of the Gilded Era).

These were not people renowned for their patience, or egalitarianism, or in acting in an adult fashion when not getting exactly what they wanted, as they wanted it. Artists like Sargent were certainly valued, but no more than a designer or other employee they'd hire and pay a wage to produce a thing -- like a portrait.


Sargent, A Dinner Table At Night, (1884)
Oil On Canvas

Sargent knew his portraiture was something he could do for money -- I'd be an idiot not to make as much cash as I can, and he did: A full-length oil portrait by JSS at the height of his popularity in the mid-1890's could cost up to 1,000 Pounds in England ($4,880 1894 U.S. dollars, at an exchange rate of 1 Pound = 4.88 US -- and that Four Thousand-plus dollars is $126,000 in 2009 value. Get your own calculations here). Sargent produced scores of portraits; it was an age awash in wealth, and for a person with demonstrable artistic talent, he did very, very well.

But he knew he was a hired hand, and had a love-hate relationship both with painting his "paughtraits", as he referred to them, and in dealing with the overgrown children who demanded make me look beautiful when they weren't. That he wasn't focused (as Thomas Eakins was) to show the 'truth' of a client / sitter's personality allowed Sargent to make the plain, if not beautiful, then at least "not plain" -- part of a harmonious and bravura display of artistic technique.


Sargent, A Trout Stream In The Tyrol, (1914)
Oil On Canvas

At the outbreak of the Great War in August, 1914, Sargent and several friends were on a walking / painting tour of the Tyrolean mountains (the painting above was done then), and had no idea that the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was going to turn into anything. Europe had been at peace so long; the idea of war seemed "silly".

In early August, Sargent found himself and his English travel;ling companions briefly interred by the local Hapsburg authorities. It took a few weeks for them to be released -- Sargent as an American neutral, and his English friends as harmless (things were handled a bit differently, in the Old Days). Sargent returned to his home in London, and painted. What else could he do?

In the spring of 1918, he was asked to serve as an official War Artist for the British government close to the front. After the Armistice, and the peace that followed in 1919, Sargent was given a commission as a recognized great artist by the British to paint a picture that epitomized the four years of struggle their nation had been through. He produced two -- Some General Officers Of The Great War, a large group portrait of the British Empire's victorious generals; but -- though his English hosts had hoped for something in the heroic tradition of art from previous wars -- in his second work, Sargeant instead gave posterity Gassed, a truer vision of war as he had experienced it.

He continued producing work until the week he died, in 1925.




Thomas Anschutz, The Ironworker's Noontime, (1880)
Oil On Canvas

Thomas P. Anschutz (1851 - 1912) studied art at the National Academy of Design in New York City, and moved to Philadelphia in 1875 to study under Thomas Eakins. He entered the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 1876 -- became Eakins's assistant in 1878, and (after Eakins resigned over disagreement with his teaching methods) his successor in 1886.

The Ironworker's Noontime is possibly my favorite painting in the de Young collection; it's the one I remember having an effect on my own art when I first saw it in the mid 1970's. Anschutz, as much a teller of truth in art as his mentor, Eakins, wanted to honestly depict the state of a group of ordinary American workers, and critical reaction at the time was almost uniformly negative.

Wikipedia notes: "One of the first American paintings to depict the bleakness of factory life, The Ironworkers' Noontime appears to be a clear indictment of industrialization. Its brutal candor startled critics, who saw it as unexpectedly confrontational -- a chilling industrial snapshot not the least picturesque or sublime."

In his time as director of the Pennsylvania Academy, Anshutz's students included Robert Henri, George Luks, William Glackens, John Sloan, Charles Demuth, John Marin, and Charles Sheeler, among others.





Thomas Eakins, Portrait Of Frank Ray St. John, (1900)
Oil On Canvas

On the same wall as Anschutz's Noontime is a portrait by his old mentor, Thomas Eakins (1844 - 1916).

Eakins was known in his lifetime primarily as a teacher of art, who painted. He sold few paintings during his lifetime, and his strict adherence to getting to the truth of a thing through his painting meant many wealthy Philidelphians who engaged him to paint their portraits ended up returning them to Eakins as unsatisfactory.

In 1886, as a director of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Eakins was embroiled in a controversy over his use of male, and female, nude models for drawing classes, and some allied incidents. The parents of local students in Philidelphia were concerned that Eakins was a corrupting influence (artists being equated with libertines and radical thought is nothing new); the board of directors dismissed him. Eakins was deeply embittered by the act, and never really recovered from it.

It was another twenty years before Eakins' talent as an artist began to be recognized -- belatedly, and not in monetary terms -- and not until well after his death in 1916 that his work was seen as important contributions to American art.



UPDATE: This post is still under construction -- there will be additional works from the de Young added shortly.


Tuesday, December 21, 2010

What The Dog Is Doing: Holiday Edition


Travis Schlaht, Pierre de Ronsard, Oil On Canvas 12 X 14 (2007)

As a Dog capable of self-locomotion, I'm on vacation this week; post-Hanukkah, pre-Festivus, pre-Bill O'Reilly's Day. I haven't gone anywhere -- just relaxing and getting some actual work done as opposed to the Witless Labor™ I perform most of the rest of the year.

Today, I finally went downhill from where I live to the John Pence Gallery on Post Street in The City. While walking down the southern face of Nob Hill from the Mark Hopkins hotel, for a short time I kept passing members of the Bohemian Club, walking uphill from their Special Treehouse, most probably after lunch.

The Club's dining room is said to serve a decent repast, as you'd expect for one of the centers of power in the Western world. Can't have Our Lords eating like the Peasantry, can we?

The Bohemian Club was originally founded in 1872 in San Francisco by local journalists who wanted contact with the artists of The City -- writers, painters, actors; musicians and librettists. However, that changed quickly; as Wikipedia noted, Journalists were to be regular members; artists and musicians were to be honorary members. The group quickly relaxed its rules for membership to permit some people to join who had little artistic talent, but enjoyed the arts and had greater financial resources. Eventually, the original "bohemian" members were in the minority and the wealthy and powerful controlled the club.


Bohemian Club Building, San Francisco

And so it is today. The Bohemian is a publicly-known exclusive club for the wealthy, the powerful, the connected. The club's bylaws state that approximately a quarter of the membership are to be actual artists, but are only admitted after an audition or show of their work for the real members -- whose understanding of art is only that they can afford to purchase as much of it as they want. The artists are only for show; the real business of the club goes on with its 'real' membership.

A Who's Who of members attending the Club's annual 'Bohemian Grove' celebrations in Marin County would include most of the country's corporate elite, banking and financial organizations; old-money families; and politicians of both parties. Needless to say, over the two weekends each year when the Club hosts its revels, a lot of informal business is done and connections for future business created.

I passed the front of the Club, covered in dead ivy leaves, with its main members' entrance (which you might have seen in the film The Game, where Michael Douglas' investment banker character is [aber natürlich] a member, and meets his brother [Sean Penn] for lunch). A plaque around the corner on Taylor Street honors poet and writer Brett Harte -- who would probably vomit to see just where the accolade was placed, and the sort of characters hosting it. Not so strangely, the Bohemian's building is architecturally cheek-by-jowl with another, lesser San Francisco club, the Metropolitan.

Universally, the men I passed were white-haired Caucasians in their late fifties to mid-sixties, and very well-dressed: Camels'-hair overcoats over their houndstooth sports coats; shined, toe-cap Oxfords; and a bow-tie or two. That, and the demeanor of persons who take no one seriously outside their own class. They don't have to; they'll only engage you if they want their Jag tuned or their bathrooms cleaned, or you have something they want: Then you feel the not-necessarily discreet charm of the haute bourgeois, and you'd best know your place and snap to.

Finally, I made it to the gallery (with a side trip to a second, small display of student work at a branch of the Art Institute of San Francisco). John Pence, the gallery's owner, has been a major figure in the contemporary realist movement in American painting; a supporter of figurative, realist artists, like the two that have had shows this past month:



Steven J. Levin
All Images © The Artist; Information On The Painter


Self Portrait, 2005


The Cloud, 2010


Tangerines and Water Goblet, 2010


The Rembrandt Room, 2008


Dirt Road, 2010



Randall Sexton
All Images © The Artist; Information On The Painter


Dishrack #1, 2010


Cliff Shadow, 2010


The Cove, 2010


Nob Hill Stories, 2007




On my way back home, I stopped for a moment of quiet in Grace Cathedral, the reinforced-concrete faux Gothic church on Nob Hill, and a stone's throw from another Club for The Elite, the Pacific-Union. Inside, silence almost visibly hangs in the air, the sense of a living presence (which was the point of much sacred architecture from the Gothic era; the soaring, vaulted spaces lifting the eye heavenward). The place was, thankfully, almost empty.

In one of the front pews, I sat for a while, and finally recited to myself a variation on a few lines from one of my favorite John Cheever short stories, "The Apples Of Heaven", where an old poet afflicted with an emblematic sickness of spirit says a prayer made of the names of writers he admired.

God bless Edward Hopper, I thought; God bless Georgia O'Keeffe, and Arthur Dove, too (though I don't like most of his stuff); God bless Jean "Moebius" Giraud; God Bless Alex Ross; God bless Michael Whelan and Donato Giancola; God bless Maxfield Parrish; God bless Fortuno Matania; God bless Henri Matisse, and Vincent Van Gogh, and Claude Monet; God Bless George Grosz, and Käthe Kollwitz; God Bless Albert York; and God bless Mark Rothko; and particularly God bless John Singer Sargent.

What gets me out of bed in the mornings is not the Witless Labor I have to perform for money; it's for whatever small mercies my days may contain, and to see things of beauty -- and if I have the chance to make a few of my own, es ist Besser so.

Now I am home, on my rug by the heater, having turned around twice before lying down: Happy Secular and Non-Secular Holidays To All, and To All A Good Night.


Thursday, December 16, 2010

The Truth Is Out There


For Most, This Is The Signpost At The Border Of Consciousness

Yet, Strangely, No One Gives A Damn

I'm not in the habit of reposting other people's work in full.

That said, Barry Ritholtz, financial investment analyst and a person of consistently-demonstrated intelligence, operates his own very successful site, The Big Picture, and is the author of a get-to-the-meat-of-it book about the 2007-2008 Crash, "Bailout Nation".

I have issues with what Barry does for a living, and have written about that before; however, that doesn't stop me from frankly admiring his intelligence and insight.

And that being said, I want to repost in full something which he noted on his blog this morning. It isn't laziness on my part; when I see a distillation of information that can help clarify a situation most politicians and the Mainstream Media have only helped to obscure...

Well, read it; learn something -- even better, do your own research.



10 Questions for GOP Members of Financial Crisis Inquiry
By Barry Ritholtz - December 16th, 2010, 7:45AM

I never wanted to write Bailout Nation.

That only came about after Bear Stearns collapsed. McGraw Hill approached Bill Fleckenstein to do a follow up to his successful Greenspan’s Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve, about the end of Bear.

Fleck turned them down, but the publisher asked him who else was covering this subject. I was told he said “That’s easy, Ritholtz has been all over this story.”

I turned McGraw Hill down — repeatedly. But they cajoled and flattered and eventually I relented. I approached the subject from a blank slate, pragmatically, with no agenda. It was a problem solving exercise, I began by looking for data that led me where it would. Following the money was good advice for anyone researching this.

That data led me to numerous conclusions: I blamed Republicans, I blamed Democrats, I blamed the Federal Reserve, Congress, the ratings agencies, mortgage originators and lending banks, the biggest Wall Street firms, the SEC, borrowers and home buyers, the RE agents, the mortgage brokers, appraisers, and Collateralized debt obligation (CDO) managers. I blamed Greenspan & Gramm, Bush & Clinton, Paulson & Bernanke & Rubin & Summers, Even mutual funds, compensation consultants and crony corporate board members come in for criticism. (This is only a partial list).

Which leads to today’s exercise in willful ignorance.

The 4 GOP members of the FCIC have a document which purports to have questions and answers on the causes of the financial crisis. It is a silly analysis that could have been written by wingnut think tanks like the AEI or Cato BEFORE the crisis even occurred. It absolves Wall Street and the banks, blames the government — for everything — and ignores reality and the data that conclusively demonstrate otherwise.

To these people, I ask the following questions:

1. From 2001 to 2003, Alan Greenspan took rates down to levels not seen in almost half a century, then kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. What was the impact of ultra low interest rates on Housing, credit, the bond markets, and derivatives?

2. How significant were the Ratings Agencies (S&P, Moodys and Fitch) to the collapse? What did their AAA ratings on junk derivatives affect? What about their being paid directly by underwriters for these ratings?

3. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 removed all Derivatives from all oversight, including reserve requirements, exchange listings, and disclosures. What effect did the CFMA have on firms such as AIG, Bear, Lehman, Citi, Bank of America?

4. Prior to 2004, Investment Houses were limited to 12-to-1 leverage by the SEC’s net capitalization rule. In 2004, the 5 largest investment banks asked for, and received, a full exemption from leverage restrictions (known as the Bear Stearns exemption) These five firms all jacked up their leverage. What impact did this increased leverage have on the crisis?

5. For seven decades, Glass Steagall separated FDIC insured depository banks from riskier investment houses. Prior to the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1998, the market had regular crashes that did not spill over into the real economy: 1966, 1970, 1974, and most telling of all, 1987. What impact did the repeal of Glass Steagall have on the banking system during the 2008-09 crash?

6. NonBank Lenders: Most of the sub-prime mortgages were made by unregulated non-bank lenders. They had a ”Lend to securitize” business model, and they sold enormous amounts of subprime loans to Wall Street for this purpose. Primarily located in California, they were also unregulated by both the Federal Reserve and the California State legislator. What was the impact of these firms?

7. These firms abdicated traditional lending standards. They pushed option arms, interest only loans, and negative amortization mortgages, all of which defaulted in huge numbers. Was non-bank, sub-prime lending a major factor in the crisis?

8. The entire world had a simultaneous global housing boom and bust. US legislation such as the CRA or Fannie & Freddie only covered US housing and lenders. How did this cause a worldwide boom and bust — even bigger than that in the US ?

9. Prior to the 2004, many States had Anti-Predatory Lending (APL) laws on their books (and lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Federally Preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. What was the impact of this OCC Federal Preemption ?

10. Corporate Structure: None of the Wall Street partnerships got into trouble, only the publicly traded iBanks. Partnerships have full personal liability for their losses. What was the impact of this lack of personal liability of senior management on Wall Street risk management?

I can go on and on — but the concept is rather simple: If you cannot answer these questions, or adequately explain these facts, then how on earth can you explain the credit crisis?

-- Barry Ritholtz


Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Salvato! Silvio Salvato Per Avere il sesso con più ragazze adolescenti!


Silvio! Acts Good, As A PM Should (Photo: The Age.au)

Stability

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Primo Pene l'Italia, has been given a serious wake-up call: A vote of 'No Confidence' in his government, which he barely survived.

[I have to admit at this juncture, as a Thinking Dog, I have to fight off a desire to explain what that, and differences between a Parliamentary system of government and the Rotating Clown College we use in America. From this point forward, if you're reading something and don't understand it, Tut mir leid. Please do your own research.]

He survived the vote in Italy's Upper Chamber of deputies by 3 votes. In the Lower Chamber of Italy's parliament, Berlusconi's National People's Fascisti Pizza Party has an approximate 25-vote majority -- but it was the vote Tuesday which, if successful, would have forced new Parliamentary elections and removed the tubby Oligarch Berlusconi from power.

In his defense, Berlusconi relied on the same argument which originally brought him to power: Italy, having gone through over 50 governments since 1948, "needs stability". In 2010, Silvio told the Deputies, with the world in an economic crisis, Italy needs continuity and stability, which only a 74-year-old hormonally-raging multi-billionaire with poor impulse control can provide.

Silvio!, as a multi-billionaire Oligarch who runs his own country, favors the 'New Austerity' measures which will force the populations of Europe to pay off debts incurred by corrupt banks (and billionaires), so that the Banksters won't lose a dime of their hard-earned loot.

I particularly liked the part in film from Italian television of Silvio! striding into the Upper Chamber, past the table with his government's ministers -- and noting how many of them were exceptionally beautiful women whom he has hired over the past few years. Their staffs, presumably, run the ministries -- because the appointed Ministers are former models and actresses.

One of these women Ministers (sadly, I do not know who) was interviewed by Agence France-Presse; she was asked point-blank if she found Silvio's! antics with, and demeaning comments toward, women as personally offensive to her. "The Prime Minister behaves like a typical Italian man," she replied. "And thank God he likes women."

And, the Italian people took it well: they demonstrated (some reports say rioted) in the streets.


Crowds Of Demonstrators Battle Italian Police (Video: UTube)


Public Reaction To Berlusconi's Continued Reign (Video: UTube)

I'd remind him of Romania, and what happened to little Nicky Chaucescu -- but I'm only a Dog, and no one listens to me.

Ha Ha Ha -- that Silvio!